Serpent God Statue

Matthew Downie's page

7,077 posts (7,096 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,077 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

NinjaPirateBob wrote:
Freedom of Movement use to be a little more explicit in its wording

It wasn't clearly worded in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Where magic is common for adventurers, for commoners its rare and scary judging by pathfinder tales books :p
Maybe not quite that rare. It's certainly at least as uncommon as being good at sleight of hand in real life, though.

It's unusual to find a village without a magic potion shop, a local cleric who can summon monsters and miraculously heal wounds, etc.

At least, those are the villages I tend to run into while adventuring.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Frogliacci wrote:
wizards, bards, and sorcerers all make for good stage magicians

Are stage magicians popular in Golarion?

Magician: "And when I say the magic word, abracadabra, the rabbit disappears! Amazing, yeah? Like, where did it go?"
Audience member: "You probably cast Invisibility on it. It's a pretty common spell."


Gaterie wrote:
Look at all the people in this thread saying a level 10 champion didn't murder 200+ enemies: saying they didn't ever read or play an AP isn't "uncharitable", it's true.

They didn't murder 200 creatures. They marched into the enemies' homes uninvited, got attacked, and then killed those enemies in self-defence. Fortunately, that's not considered murder, for some reason.


Claxon wrote:
HammerJack wrote:
Ten10 wrote:
Alaryth wrote:
I really dislike the concept of secret rolls. I'm liking PF2 far more than I expected, but this is one of the few areas I profundly dislike, and near all those dislikes are connected to the same; the loss of player control/agency that put even more pressure on the DM. When I GM (half the time, currently more on PF2)I do near all roll open. I'm of the opinion that the DM is just one more player on the table, the narrative should be as even as possible.

How is the DM rolling some checks a loss of player control/agency?

The phrase gets used in a lot of weird ways, these days.

And in this case it's flatly wrong.

Agency is about the player being able to choose how their character acts and having those options be meaningful.

The GM rolling instead of the player doesn't reduce player agency. It reduces metagaming and increases suspense.

You're not be taking away their character's agency, but you are taking away their actual real-life human agency, the freedom to do something they want to do: roll a dice while playing a game.


Ravingdork wrote:
Glibness, illusory disguise, magic aura, misdirection, greater clandestine cloak, greater hat of disguise, ring of lies, etc., all to protect your BBEG from being found out too early in the plot--all defeated by divine lance.

Glibness & Ring of Lies could work. "No, that didn't really hurt. You just startled me so I yelped. I'm fine. Do it again if you want! But then again, you probably shouldn't be wasting your powers."


Captain Morgan wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

When the PCs attempted to identify a coat of arms with Recall Knowledge (Society) to determine if it was the one they came for, the only person to succeed happened to be the party druid, who also happened to be the only person in the party who wasn't trained in Society.

Being a largely chaotic lot, I ended up explaining it away as none of them having paid any attention to their benefactor when he showed them an illustration of the coat of arms--except for the druid who who was incensed at the dead tree being thrust into his face. XD

Not a great start for winning them over to a secret roll system. Watcha gonna do?

I'd point out to your players that this has nothing to do with secret checks and everything to do with the variance of the d20. They could have all made their own rolls and gotten exactly the same results, and still had to justify why the druid got it in fiction.

Logically, yes. But when the players can see the dice rolls, it changes the mood.

If the GM rolls secretly then says, "The wizard has no idea what the magical runes are, but the fighter explains that they relate to a spell called Magic Missile," the players are likely to start from a viewpoint of, "That makes no sense! The wizard is an expert in arcana and the fighter is an idiot!"

If they see the fighter roll a 20 and the wizard roll a 2, then they're likely to be more accepting of whatever explanation we come up with.


Nah, it wouldn't break anything.

I used the NPCs in battle about once in the whole campaign.


To me, a DC of 10+bonus sounds too high to be fun.

If I'm taking an action against an equal opponent, I'd like at least a 65% chance of achieving something with that action.
The opponent can then attempt a counter action on their turn, which should also have around a 65% chance of success.
If the baseline for success is only 55%, then almost half of all actions will be a waste of time.

So I'd favour a DC of 8+bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
Note that "because that's how it worked in other game/other edition" isn't a reason in and of itself.

It kind of is.

The way it worked in the previous edition is what existing players will expect. Changing it makes the game harder for them to learn. "What do you mean I can't cast it from a higher level slot? Show me where it says that!"

I'm not opposed to change, but there should be a reason good enough to compensate for the confusion it will cause.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
The GM has literally 2 jobs

In my last campaign I considered these my jobs:

1 Read ahead in the adventure.

2 Remember as much of it as possible so I'm not always having to stop and reread it at the table.

3 Prepare printouts of monster stats for encounters so I can annotate them.

4 Find art on the internet so I can print out minis for them.

5 Make sure I understand any special rules for the monsters, learn the effects of spells they can cast, etc.

6 For all intelligent NPCs, come up with some dialogue, personality, tone of voice, etc, so they can interact smoothly with the PCs.

7 Fix the bits of the campaign that are boring and bad, or which expect the PCs to do things they won't want to do.

8 Plan for likely player actions, come up with possible responses.

9 Add extra bits to the campaign, personalised content that ties in with the PCs' backstories.

I'd prefer not have to add "understand player's character sheets" to that list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Lynch 106 wrote:
if your using a weapon attack to point out the square I hope it's a thrusting weapon. Otherwise a slashing or bludgeoning weapon really only narrows it down to a few squares.

How wildly are you swinging your club if we can't work out what you're aiming at to within a few feet? Normally you'd need a Cleave feat to swing your weapon across multiple squares.


thenobledrake wrote:

Minor point: the entire table behaving as if their character knows information that is explicitly said to only be had by one character is not "metagaming" - it's plain ol' cheating.

Top result on internet: "Metagaming is a term used in role-playing games, which describes a player's use of real-life knowledge concerning the state of the game to determine their character's actions, when said character has no relevant knowledge or awareness under the circumstances."

Behaving like your character knows information that they do not have is the very definition of metagaming. (That doesn't mean it's not also cheating.)


Goblin Guard wrote:
Thus, I was wondering - what monsters lend themselves best to encounters against mounted characters?

Something like a bunch of archers scattered over a wide area, using hit and run tactics? A guy with a sword will struggle, but a guy on a horse can catch up with them and run them down fairly easily.

But it depends on the rest of the party - archers and wizards will have less trouble with this kind of opposition.


That's why it's better if you can roll openly. If you roll behind a screen, it's a natural assumption that anything statistically unusual is probably the GM changing the numbers - isn't that the primary reason for them to use a screen in the first place?

At any given table, there's likely to be at least one person who vehemently hates the possibility of fudging, so you're usually going to be spoiling at least one person's fun by hiding your rolls.


avr wrote:
Which seems like a reasonable code for CG for the most part, tho' the no force or threatening part seems like it's asking for a fall as an adventurer.
Rysky wrote:
The “You must never knowingly harm an innocent, or allow immediate harm to one through inaction when you know you could reasonably prevent it.“ part supersedes the don’t force/don’t threaten part.

But in any situation where an innocent isn't in immediate danger, there's nothing in that part of the code forcing or permitting you to intervene.

Quote:
you can’t force someone to act in a particular way or threaten them if they don’t

It sounds like it's there to distinguish them from the kind of pushy, "I don't tell lies or use poisons, therefore none you are allowed to," Paladins that sometimes appeared in old editions. But forcing someone to release their slaves probably should be allowed.

Fortunately, there's no rule against just stabbing someone to death if you don't approve of what they're doing. (Unless they're an innocent, of course.)


Doppleman wrote:

What I'm thinking of with the basic template is to forget about the feats, forget about the barely useful spells, forget traits and all the things you have to look up to be sure what bonus they grant.

Simply average hp, ac, atk, dmg, saves, skills. Try to make it minimal and still working. And only keep unique spells or abilities.

What are you averaging? All different enemies into a single generic enemy? That seems like it would make the game a lot less interesting, and also add an extra 'averaging' step to the preparation.

"You're attacked by an orc shaman, a black dragon, and six orc warriors. Everyone you're fighting has identical stats. Would you wait a few minutes while I add everything up and divide by 8?"

The most effective way to simplify running combat encounters for a GM is to run just about any game system other than Pathfinder 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I'm not sure how "want to autosucceed" isn't wanting an easier game.

Autosucceed (or 95% succeed) at the two things you're specialised in, do not autosucceed at the seventeen things you're not? It's a reasonable preference... Less so if the thing you want to autosucceed at instantly makes someone else unable to fight back in combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it could probably have been done better. But it's too late to fix it now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't need to fly. Just do a little jump at the right time.


Artofregicide wrote:
Building a unoptimized fighter in 1e isn't actually a problem until you a druid or summoner completely overshadowing them. Unless you're playing an AP, encounters aren't fixed and a good GM adjusts the game to their party anyway.

Though if the GM isn't adjusting encounters, for reasons of time or gaming philosophy ("It's your job to keep the party alive, not mine."), then for every unoptimized PC you need an optimized PC to balance out the party and prevent TPK. Not that this does anything to prevent player frustration...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

So in amongst all the people complaining about how the game is brutally hard you somehow come out with the reading that you always succeed?

Maybe this meant, "In PF2, you always succeed at making viable characters. A real RPG is one where if you make single mistake in your build you can get stuck with a useless PC holding the group back. PF2 has taken all the fear, tension and excitement out of character generation by turning it into something anyone can do."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Because continuously and effortlessly oneshotting encounters gets boring after awhile.

If the enemy has to spend an action to pick up their weapon, possibly provoking a reaction (which is what I would expect a basic non-critical disarm would do), that's not a oneshot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NemoNoName wrote:
-1AC, -1 Reflex, and a bunch of minor other negatives

I'd hoped PF2 wouldn't require players to track lots of minor pluses and minuses...


Other options:
Bonded object.
Just get some scrolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One way to clarify would be to put three or four examples in the Heightening rules section to show why you'd want to do it for spells with no 'Heightened' effect listed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
My point is that a GM might not want to allow access to Teleport to his players at all. So any adventure that provides an opportunity for PCs to get it, or even worse an adventure that relies on that, will need some rework to function well.

I'm the type of GM who might prevent players getting access to teleportation. I dislike the way teleport allows players to skip massive amounts of content, break adventure concepts, etc. ("We teleport the ring to Mount Doom, drop it, teleport home.")

But if an adventure gives PCs teleport on purpose, that suggests an adventure that is designed to handle teleportation. If that's the case, I would be OK with running that adventure and letting my players get teleport.

Another reason a GM might want to restrict something is flavor. "No guns in my nice medieval style fantasy world!" But in this case, it's likely that either guns will be a major part of the campaign (so we'd probably notice in advance and know not to buy it) or they're minor and easy to remove ("You find a shotgun... I mean, a crossbow.")


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:
Similarly, it seems eminently reasonable for the invisible party to simply step aside and allow another creature to move through, even though it's "not their turn" and they don't possess a "step aside" reaction as such.

Personally, I disagree with that approach. In my experience (not that I've tested this in PF2), invisibility is a really harsh condition for non-magical PCs to have to deal with. Blundering into them at random is one of your few options for tracking them down. Giving invisible creatures a free dodge (100% reliable, not costing a Reaction) makes it even more frustrating.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It depends on if you're operating on a "combat as sport" mentality (where enemies are grouped into Encounters who wait in their own rooms and are designed to provide an interesting challenge when you open the door) or a "combat as war" mentality where you have a bunch of potential enemies in an environment, and you try to make them act realistically.

In "combat as war" scenario, the PCs might be better off hanging around outside the dungeon, monitoring it for activity, picking off isolated patrols, and trying to do as much damage as possible before the enemies can even figure out the nature of the threat they're facing.

In a "combat as sport" scenario, the GM isn't trying so hard to create a realistic simulationist threat, so the amount of time for resting can be whatever seems fair given the trouble they've faced. ("So, the PCs have fought two battles with a ten minute rest in between. The first went pretty smoothly, but they had some unlucky dice rolls in the second, so at this point it made sense for them to retreat to the nearby forest and spend a few hours treating their wounds. I don't want to punish them for being sensible, so I'll try to find a reason why the bad guys aren't on full alert yet.")

There might be a standard amount of rest that's fair for PF2, but it will take more experimentation to find the balance (given the unpredictable incompetence of real-world players). And even if we could establish that, say, twenty minutes per encounter is standard, that doesn't mean it will necessarily make sense for a given scenario.


Meirril wrote:
First, you need to get the portable hole in your hand. Generally its going to be a standard action to retrieve it. You aren't going to tell me you keep it in a Handy Haversack, right?

It's a Move Action to "Retrieve a stored item" in Pathfinder.

(Handy Haversack only makes this action not provoke AoO; it doesn't make it any quicker.)


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
What about those of us who dislike (or even hate) the bulk rules but who followed the full encumbrance rules before?

You could import the encumbrance rules and weights from PF1 into PF2?


The rules seem to suggest that you can fit 70 days of rations in a single belt pouch. Is this a typo?


Zi Mishkal wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
The Rot Grub wrote:
If you're running a solo monster use the Weak Template at the front of the Bestiary to lower its level by 1.
Increasing the PCs' level by 1 would have a similar effect.
That's an interesting idea. So would the recommendation be to always keep the PCs one level ahead of where they are supposed to be in the game?

It's a lot easier than adjusting every encounter down a level. Possible issues include:

(1) Do your players want to start from level 1?
(2) What if another player shows up?
(3) What level is the AP supposed to go up to? If it's 20, increasing them to level 21 be weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
thorin001 wrote:
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I guess I find it kind of odd that needing to the roll the die in a d20 tabletop game is somehow a flaw?

To each their own.

Failing to tie your shoes 5% of the time is a flaw.
And this kids is what we call a "false equivalency".

Seems like pretty much everyone in this thread is engaging in false equivalency, strawmanning, etc.

"A specialist should succeed about 90% of the time and critically succeed 40% of the time."
"Why do you want to remove dice from the game? Removing dice from the game would be bad because..."
"Why are you insisting a specialist should consistently fail at common tasks 50% of the time? Why do you want to replace dice with coin tosses?"
"Why are you badwrongfunning me?"
"Why are you badwrongfunning me?"
Etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Rot Grub wrote:
If you're running a solo monster use the Weak Template at the front of the Bestiary to lower its level by 1.

Increasing the PCs' level by 1 would have a similar effect.


Does a mana system require the caster to have access to their entire spell list at all times? Or is there a separate 'choose your spells' step?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
I fail to see how that's different from, say, 3.5/PF mentioning in one place that you can't make a spell with range: personal into a potion and spell descriptions not having a "you can/can't make a potion of this" line.

That was a flaw in PF1. The 'no personal-spell potions' rule wasn't well highlighted. Many players failed to spot it. Even Paizo employees frequently gave NPCs potions of personal spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Poit wrote:

64 critical fail (16%)

127 non-critical fail (31.75%)
144 non-critical success (36%)
65 critical success (16.25%)

So, this idea that if we interpret "fails by 10 or more" as "DC-10 or worse", we will make critical failures more likely than critical successes? I completely reject that.

That's an example where success is more likely than failure, yet critical success and critical failure are balanced.

If we change the DC to 21, we get:
75 critical fail (18.75%)
134 non-critical fail (33.5%)
136 non-critical success (34%)
55 critical success (13.75%)
So in this case the non-criticals are pretty much balanced, but the criticals aren't.

(I'm OK with this. Critical failures for spell saves are more interesting than critical hits for attacks.)


17 people marked this as a favorite.
thenobledrake wrote:
...and the chance isn't actually 50% because the timing of Shield Block is such that the damage roll has already been made before you choose whether to block or not since "roll dice" is step 1 of figuring out damage and "take damage" is step 4. So you can use the reaction on the hits that won't destroy your shield in one go if that's what you'd rather do than just get a little extra reduction of damage at the cost of your isn't-just-for-defense item.

That decision still doesn't feel right to me.

GM: "You are hit."
Player: "Fortunately, my character is ready to use her shield to absorb the blow, thus preventing damage to her body."
GM: "It's a heavy blow: 68 damage."
Player: "Yikes! In that case she will use her body to absorb the blow, thus preventing damage to her shield."
GM: "The fiend's axe sinks deep into your flesh. Blood flies everywhere."
Player: "Don't worry, little shield. I won't let you come to any harm..."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
A lot of the blame for this can probably be laid at Forgotten Realms specifically as well. The Wall of the Faithless has ALWAYS been one of that setting's most contentious narrative elements

Had to look that up to remind myself:

Quote:

The Faithless are mortals who do not have a divine patron. This could be because the mortal never worshipped a deity (or rejected outright the worship of any deity), the mortal's divine patron has died, or that their divine patron rejected them for whatever reason.

A Faithless soul receives only one sentence when it reaches the City of Judgment on the Fugue Plane: the Wall of the Faithless. Over time the soul dissolves into the very substance of the wall.

Demons propagate by stealing Faithless souls from the wall and retreating with them back to the Abyss.

Other References
Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer presents the player with the option of forever destroying the Wall of the Faithless, so that the Faithless no longer endure any punishment in the afterlife. According to the game, destroying the Wall destroys part of the covenant between gods and mortals: the game engine thus interprets the Wall's destruction as an evil act

Yeah, I'm taking the side of the wall-destroyers there...


The ShadowShackleton wrote:

In that context, what are the pitfalls of what I propose?

- take an action to give the npc 3 actions once per round

It's much more effective to use your third action to give a PC ally three actions than to make a third attack or whatever, so anyone who wants to win battles will be doing this most of the time. This means that whoever agrees to have the character as a minion will basically (a) Have to run an extra character (which you say they don't want to), and (b) Will lose one-third of their own PC's combat actions.

Possible pitfall 1: no-one is willing to do that.

Possible pitfall 2: someone reluctantly agrees to take on a minion PC then refuses to give up their own actions; as a result the minion PCs just stand there uselessly, a tough battle becomes deadly, all the PCs of players who turned up die, and all the other PCs are unconscious.

The ShadowShackleton wrote:

I have a couple of uncompromising old school gamers in my group who are very vocal on keeping all characters present even when the player is away.

...
My players mostly hate running the extra character.

The players who insist on keeping all characters present should have to run the extra characters, even if they hate doing so. If they're unable or unwilling, then no-one runs them ("Oh no, he has been struck down by a mysterious curse and gone into a trance!") and you quietly reduce the threat level of encounters.


Unicore wrote:
So I think the question, or at least my question is: with the change From the playtest rulebook to the PF2 rulebook about what constitutes a critical failure: from Less than or equal to the DC-10 to failing a check by 10 or more, did the actual number required to roll a critical failure change? Is 10 less than the DC a critical failure or a failure? Because the glossary still says DC-10 but the rules on page 10 and in chapter 9 playing the game use the failing by 10 or more language, which is a shift away from the DC-10 language.

Those are the same thing.

If the DC is 15, 10 less than the DC is 5.
"Less than or equal to the DC-10" means 5 or less.
"Failing by 10" means 5 or less.


thorin001 wrote:
"You see a medium sized mammalian quadruped."

In PF1, I would, before the players act, first give them the information from the Bestiary about the creature's appearance. E.g.:

Spittle drips from this feral bear’s roaring maw, and its matted fur is broken in places by wicked, bony growths.
I might alternatively show them the illustration. Or give them both.

It would be nice if the rules told GMs to do this, but it shouldn't be necessary...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I can usually tell which NPCs are going to betray me due to inadvertent foreshadowing by the GM...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DerNils wrote:
But with perception and sense motive, it really Comes down to "Everybody always wanted this skill maxed, so let it scale automatically."

Was this especially true of Sense Motive?

Everyone wants to be good at Acrobatics, because that can stop you from falling into a ravine. But Sense Motive was a skill where you could usually do fine by relying on a single party specialist to make rolls on your behalf.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
In the case of a DC 15 with no bonuses, how is rolling a 5 "failing the check by 10 or more?" It is not because a 15 is not a failure.

If I needed 70 points on my test to get a Pass, and I got a 69, I would say I failed by 1 point. If I got 60 I would say I failed by 10 points.

One could attempt to construct another linguistic method to describe this, such as saying, "If you get 69 points, you fail exactly. If you get 68 points, you fail by an excess of 1." But this is not a terminology people are likely to adopt.

The way I understand it, the way I'm pretty sure almost everyone understands it, is that if you need a 15 to succeed and you get a 5, you fail by 10. If you described that as 'failing by 9' you would be confusing everyone for no reason.


graystone wrote:
The actual Battle Medicine text says you "Patch up" someone which means "to give quick and usually temporary medical treatment" by the dictionary. Example "The doctor patched him up, so he's going to be as good as new." I'm not really seeing how a 1 round action [2 seconds] gives rise to an expectation of tool use with multiple hands.

As opposed to what? Spitting on them? If you heard, "The doctor patched him up," wouldn't you expect her to use her hands at some point?

Something along the lines of "pulling an alchemical plaster from my belt pouch with a free hand and slapping it on to a wound" makes sense to me as a two second action; it's not real-world plausible, but it's stretching reality rather than breaking it.

If it's magical, I'd like to know how the magic works, how it interacts with antimagical counters. If it's non-magical I'd like to know how it works. If there's a 500mph golf cart, I'd like to know exactly how it's controlled, because that sounds dangerous. The further away it is from normal conditions, the more I want an explanation.


I don't have a problem with that, I'm just saying that in this case, Lay on Hands ought to say so explicitly, because that's contrary to expectations. (Similarly, PF1 said, "Despite the name of this ability, a paladin only needs one free hand to use this ability.")


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Outrider wrote:

That is indeed the crux of it: the book doesn't state explicitly that it is DC-10, only, "If you fail a check by 10 or more, that’s a critical failure"

But if failing starts at DC-1... do we count from the start of failing, or do we count from the start of succeeding?

Is this considered ambiguous? I thought it was obvious that if you need an 11 to succeed, rolling 10 is "fail by 1", rolling 9 is "fail by 2", and rolling 1 is "fail by 10".

I've never heard of anyone saying, "fail by zero".

An interesting imaginary rule for examining the 'issue' of imbalance is if +2/-2 (instead of +10/-10) was a critical success or failure.

Say we're rolling d20 + 9 against a DC of 20. With the +2/-2 rule:
11 or 12 is success. (10% chance)
10 is failure. (5% chance)
9 or less is critical failure. (45% chance).
13 or more is critical success. (40% chance).

The player has a 50% chance of success and a 50% chance of failure, but the chance of the failure being critical is slightly higher.

Since the difference is only 5% (whether using this rule or the PF2 +/-10 rule) I don't see it matters much.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JamesMaster wrote:
OK. So this is a casualty of streamlining the game? Do you like the Perception as Sense Motive? If not, what do you (or anyone else here) plan to do?

In PF1, Perception was too important compared to other skills. It was "spot traps" and "find hidden treasure" and "find secret door" and "find clues" and "don't die in an ambush" all rolled into one.

I saw a GM trying to fix that by separating things out and adding an Intelligence-based "Search" skill.

This sounded sensible, but it ended up causing problems, like:

(a) It made things harder for characters with few skill points.

(b) The distinction between the two wasn't clear. "I don't want to Search for traps, I want to Perceive them."

(c) Search wasn't well-integrated into the rest of the game. It isn't listed as anyone's class skill and can't be boosted with feats or magic items or spells, it's never mentioned in published adventures, rules for traps, etc.

My advice would be to do nothing. You're likely to break more than you fix.

Or if you do anything, do it on a minor level. ("Hey, since this character has lived alone in the wilderness most of her life, how about saying she gets +2 for perceiving things in the wilderness, and a -2 for sensing motives?")

1 to 50 of 7,077 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>